FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W132846747> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W132846747 startingPage "14" @default.
• W132846747 abstract "Bland v. Roberts, 857 F. Supp. 2d 599 (E.D. Va. 2012) I. INTRODUCTION Facebook is a website that allows users to share photos, news, stories, and personal anecdotes from their daily lives an easy to follow online community. (1) The website has developed a huge following and just recently reached the milestone of having over 1 billion users worldwide. (2) Each Facebook user has a profile that typically shares the user's name, a brief biographical background, pictures the user has uploaded to the site, a list of the user's Facebook friends, and a list of Facebook pages the user has liked. (3) Unlike personal profiles, Facebook pages are set up for various groups, such as businesses, organizations, religious groups, political groups, music groups, sports teams, and brands order for them to connect with users and share that group's messages or simply represent their respective identities. (4) With such a large amount of users logged on to Facebook at any given time, the website has become an extremely efficient way to communicate messages, both commercially and personally. Accordingly, the website has become one of the central means of conveying a message throughout the world. On average, Facebook processes 2.7 billion likes, 300 million photo uploads, and 2.5 billion status updates every day. (5) As Facebook continues to grow and provide an effective and efficient forum to present thoughts and ideas, it is essential that the courts protect these expressions of speech through the First Amendment. In Bland v. Roberts, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was presented with the issue of whether liking a page on Facebook is speech protectable by the First Amendment. (6) This Note argues that the court's holding, that liking something on Facebook is not worthy of First Amendment protection, is a disturbing result that endangers one of our most fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In Part II, this Note analyzes the facts and holding of Bland v. Roberts. Next, Part III, this Note describes detail how Facebook operates and explains the legal background of the first amendment and its interaction with online communication. Part IV examines the court's rationale Bland v. Roberts. Lastly, Part V explains the flaws the court's reasoning and provides suggestions to courts facing similar controversies the future. II. FACTS & HOLDING Plaintiff Daniel Ray Carter, Jr., worked the Hampton sheriffs office Hampton, Virginia, as a sworn, uniformed deputy sheriff. (7) Defendant B.J. Roberts was the sheriff that office. (8) In November 2009, Roberts was up for re-election for the sheriff position. (9) Jim Adams, former lieutenant colonel the sheriffs department, opposed Roberts the election. (10) Roberts won the election and subsequently decided not to reappoint Carter. (11) Carter alleged that the months leading up to the election, Roberts learned that Carter expressed support for his opponent, Adams. (12) On March 4, 2011, Carter filed suit against Roberts in his individual and official capacities the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that Roberts violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for supporting Adams the election. (13) Specifically, Carter alleged that Roberts retaliated against him for his expressions of support for Adams via Facebook. (14) Carter argued that this retaliation violated his right to free speech. (15) Carter claimed that he sent a message of support to Adams on his Facebook page and also liked Adams' page. (16) Roberts conceded that he was aware of Carter's activity on his opponent's Facebook page. (17) Roberts claimed that his failure to reappoint Carter after his re-election was not retaliatory nature. (18) He asserted that his decision was because of Carter's unsatisfactory work performance or for [Roberts'] belief that [Carter's] actions 'hindered the harmony and efficiency of the [o]ffice. …" @default.
• W132846747 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W132846747 creator A5058401067 @default.
• W132846747 date "2013-03-22" @default.
• W132846747 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W132846747 title "Social Networking and Freedom of Speech: Not Like Old Times" @default.
• W132846747 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W132846747 type Work @default.
• W132846747 sameAs 132846747 @default.
• W132846747 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W132846747 countsByYear W1328467472017 @default.
• W132846747 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W132846747 hasAuthorship W132846747A5058401067 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C108827166 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C112698675 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C120060458 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C518677369 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C71901391 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W132846747 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C10138342 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C108827166 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C110875604 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C112698675 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C120060458 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C136764020 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C144133560 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C166957645 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C17744445 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C182306322 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C199539241 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C41008148 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C518677369 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C71901391 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C94625758 @default.
• W132846747 hasConceptScore W132846747C95457728 @default.
• W132846747 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W132846747 hasLocation W1328467471 @default.
• W132846747 hasOpenAccess W132846747 @default.
• W132846747 hasPrimaryLocation W1328467471 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W1587996978 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W175139536 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W2020132569 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W238821807 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W240448969 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W2480850119 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W2482685481 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W248530421 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W2494962259 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W2531014698 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W2768988435 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W2773637032 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W288437839 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W3123868456 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W3125278282 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W3164587719 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W43178369 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W46955452 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W219177699 @default.
• W132846747 hasRelatedWork W87434318 @default.
• W132846747 hasVolume "78" @default.
• W132846747 isParatext "false" @default.
• W132846747 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W132846747 magId "132846747" @default.
• W132846747 workType "article" @default.